Breaking: Army Rejects Punishment for Chaplain Squires

At the end of the day, if anyone has been the victim of discrimination here, it’s been Chaplain Squires and Staff Sergeant Griffin. I’m thankful that a two-star general stepped in and corrected things, but it should never have come to that in the first place.

Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports on the First Liberty press release that the Army has rejected the recommendation to punish Chaplain (Maj) Scott Squires for how he handled a Strong Bonds marriage retreat when a homosexual couple said they wanted to come.

Today, the United States Army announced that it has rejected the findings of an investigation, and will abandon charges of “dereliction of duty” against First Liberty Institute clients Chaplain Scott Squires and Chaplain Assistant, SSG Kacie Griffin.

5 comments

How will the uber-biased investigating officer be held accountable for running this officer’s reputation through the mud in a most un-American way?

How will the Army apologize to the chaplain in a meaningful way?

Will the Army admit its own un-American approach to this instantly open-and-shut case, which they allowed to drag on and on and on for no apparent purpose, all while chipping away at the practical free exercise of religion for others, who will now think twice, thrice, and then some before doing what the Constitution says they can do without a second thought?

@William Robinson
That’s a fascinating question, but one with historical context. It does not appear any action was taken against those who complained against Col Leland Bohannon, LtCol Kersten or Chaplain Wes Modder, for example — even though, in at least one case, there appears to be evidence of a very intentional “set up.”

Even a “The AF is now emphasizing the importance of religious liberty to its commanders and EO offices” would go far in demonstrating a genuine respect for religious liberty.

So this “investigation” was clearly a CDI – Command Directed Investgation. The investigator is likely just some Jr. officer without any real legal and/or investigative experience. The invetigstor probably got handed a CDI handbook and a junior JAG officer or paralegal as a handler (to seek guidance if needed).

Once CDI reports are written they go thru the local JAG for legal sufficiency review. So there is a Sr. JAG officer out there that saw nothing wrong with this investgation.

The better question here is…what happened to the JAG that approved both the original and revised CDI? Remember the JAG is likely the person that advised the Commander to initiate a CDI in the first place.

At the very least shouldn’t a higher JAG (say Army JAG) look into the approving JAG? I’d want to see all drafts versions of the reports pre-JAG review and any/all communications between investigator and JAG.

They clearly got this wrong. Where’s the hot wash? For Pete’s sake, at the very least, personnel in my profession get retrained if they make a “minor mistake”.

Another question that deserves an answer is did the Invetigator and/or JAG collude ( or consult with) with outside advocacy groups to formulate construct of arguments against the Pastor? Reports suggest language closely matches arguments made by outside groups.

Monk makes a good point. Curious minds want to know what entities outside of the U.S. Army
either influenced or possibly had a direct input into this CDI. While I am personally delighted that the Army finally got it right, the fact that these events occurred at all reflects negatively and poorly on all the investigators, JAGs, the command structure and the U.S. Army as a whole.
Why was this allowed to happen in the first place?
Where’s the fix to ensure this never, ever happens again ?